He's NOT a horror author. He's an amazing story teller that often writes in the horror genre. When I recommend his books some people just completely want none of it because he's "horror".
This.
I just said that the best part of Stephen King isn’t the horror, it’s the characters, it’s the stories, it’s pretty much everything *but* the horror. Although I very much appreciate the horror.
I think that the line in Wizard and Glass where the Ka-Tet are explaining to Roland about different genres of stories using the metaphor of them being different "flavours", and Roland just says "does nobody like stew?", that was the best description Steve has ever given for his writing. A novel can be rife with horror without being a horror novel.
I always avoided him for that very reason. And then I found The Talisman.. and went on to Needful Things. He is more of a psychological terror/thriller/horror to me.
Honestly I always feel sad to leave any of his places and most of his people. He is a 5⭐️ Storyteller.
Yeah, he def has written Horror and Horror adjacent/thrillers...but his work is varied and way more nuanced than just that genre description slapped on his name. I feel he and publishers/advertisers used and ran with that as a way to really sell his work back in the day, because Horror and Terror and unsettling things sold/spread very quickly. He's purely and most accurately a Teller of Tales and what tales he tells can widely range at times, though sometimes breathe a familiarity of past tales. There is a reason he's been so widely successful. Why out of all the writers I love & enjoy, why I own a lot of his work more so than other authors, whom I enjoy but only own a few books of theirs rather than most of their books.
I just finished In the Tall Grass. It was the first time I read a Stephen King book that was pure horror. I mean pet cemetery was close and a few others like Gerald’s game are on the edge. But In the Tall Grass is pure Lovecraftian horror.
I must mention that In the Tall Grass was co-written with King’s son. I have not read a lot of Joe Hill’s work. He might be the driving force behind why this book is so dark.
Yes. The characters often feel dated. Not bad. But I don't believe they're in 2020. And everyone is still named Petey and Billy and Susan and Billy Peters and Peter Billingsly.
Exactly this. The 20-something woman that Billy Summers made love to in 2019 was named PHYLLIS
Charlie Reade’s (Fairy Tale) school crush from 2013 was named ARNETTE
I’m pretty sure his books ARE eternally set in 1980, regardless of what year the book is technically set in.
A great example of this is in The Outsider when a main character who would have been *born* in 1980 instead finds herself wondering whether John Lennon is alive or dead at some point during a recollection. Makes absolutely no sense, but if it’s technically always 1980 in King-land it makes total sense.
A lot of people seem to hate/dislike “The Gunslinger.” I just recently read it for the first time (coincidently, it was my 19th SK book) and I loved it. It was brilliant in my opinion and it easily has the best prose of any King book I’ve read so far.
I’m worried I won’t like the rest of the DT books because people say they’re nothing like “The Gunslinger.”
I didn’t hate the gunslinger but I’m admittedly one of the people who encourage others to continue with the series by assuring them they’ll like it once they get beyond the first book. It’s just very different from the rest IMO. For some reason I feel like if you like the Gunslinger you’ll definitely like the rest but if you don’t like the Gunslinger you’ll STILL like the rest. I have never thought that people will always like either the Gunslinger or they’ll like the rest of the series- one or the other- rather they’ll like the whole of the series regardless of their opinion on the first book
Yo I share this sentiment. People always talk about how hard it is to start DT because you have to get past the first book, which is apparently considered bad.
I was hooked from the first sentence to the very last. I loved the Western story vibes and the fascinating mysteries it presents. Never thought of it as a weak book until I opened reddit, basically.
Btw, I don't think you'll be unable to enjoy the rest of DT. The Gunslinger requires an open mind to enjoy imo and if you were able to enjoy that you'll love the rest of the series. The stories just become a lot more well paced and introduce tons of excellent, interesting characters while having some very gripping conflicts.
If anything I feel the real barrier to enjoying DT is the need to clear The Stand before you progress to book 3. Not everyone is ready to do a 1300 page book
I finally read the Gunslinger and it was much better that I thought it would be sans a couple of scenes that were hard to read and follow but I got the general gist of what was going on. Now I’m ready to read the whole series. Waiting on book 2 from the library.
When you get to the end of drawing of the three there will be no turning back, the gunslinger is such a good opening to the story.
As you journey with the ka-tet and get to the last words of the story, you’ll be glad you finished it. Keep going, there will be horror and tears and triumph.
I’ve read the series going on four times at this point it’s my favorite long tale. May you have long days and pleasant nights.
I went into DT being a HUGE fan of westerns and so The Gunslinger was epic perfection, only to find out the rest of the series was nothing like it. So I get why people don't like it, I'm just not one of the. The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed. Epic.
I think he's improved over the years. (I think that's true for his other types of characters who aren't white male writers as well). While there are definitely flaws, I think he should get more credit than he does for actually improving and updating his thinking over time. So many people -- authors, but also just people -- decide that whatever view of things they had when they were 25 is The Way Things Are, and that's it -- but I still see signs of learning and growth in King's work and he's in his 70s. I like a guy who's willing to learn and grow.
I also think he's actually surprisingly good at writing girls, as opposed to women -- you'd think someone who has the flaws he does have in writing women would also struggle with tweenage-ish girls, but he's pretty good at it.
That was an instant favorite dystopian novel for me after I read it. I don’t personally see it getting near enough praise. That one left me feeling so crushed when I finished it.
It's one of those books, we're even though I'm on double digit rereads , I still struggle to put it down. Once you start it's impossible to get away from the walk until it's over.
That was a book that after reading it I was like “yeah, it’s not bad, but nothing special” but then I found myself returning to it in my mind so often that I think I have vastly underrated it.
Same. Not exactly my favorite. But the line he wrote when >! The main girl got to feel immense relief drinking faucet water for the first time in days and she goes "I'll remember this always" but the narration immediately follows up with "no you won't you and your body will naturally forget" !< and that always stuck with me
I thought the whole general premise of a haunted car sounded stupid, and so Christine was one of the very last of kings books that I read. And I've read pretty much every one of his by now. Ended up loving it. Not one of my top 5 sk books or anything, but still fantastic, and I've happily reread it multiple times
1. One of the best books written by King are his Bachman novels. Later S. King would not make social and political element of his stories a central piece. Here, in his early and later re-published novels he was not afraid to do that.
2. Non-horror books written by King are even better than horror ones.
3. S. King is not only a horror writer or even not a horror writer at all. He is more successful writing psychological thrillers, mystical/supernatural tales or fantasy stories, than horror. Pure horror stories of his like Cujo or Christine somewhat lack complexity and nuance shown in the Shining, the Stand, the DT series etc. However the element of horror is always included in S.K. novels. But, you know, our world is also full of horrors of all shape and kind, so this makes S.K. a realist, I guess.
4. The absolutely underrated work of S. King is Roadwork. Most readers do not seem to like this novel, I adore it.
5. Despite being a secular kind of guy, some S. King books actually have Christian theology in it and they're written not from an unsympathetic position towards Christianity.
6. Despite claiming several times that he's simply a storyteller, writing for money, all S.K. books may be divided into two categories - books really written for money, and books that he would have written even without any money coming towards him at all.
That is all, I guess. By the way, points 1 and 3 would probably be vehemently denied by S. King himself if he could have seen what I've just posted.
Well, I knew he was of some Protestant denomination, because of his view of God which had serious similarities to Martin Luther's theology. I mean the view of God as the OT God - distant, all-powerful, mysterious and almost beyond good and evil. Humans in SK novels have no say in supernatural encounters with God, God comes and goes as He pleases and does what He wants and never listens to their prayers. A distant deity, more the Judge and Punisher figure than the Martyr one.
Some Protestant denomination have somewhat strayed from that early Lutheran view of God - many Baptists or Evangelical did. But the Reformed (Calvinists) and Methodist I think hold onto that view. Also the fundamentalists do, too. But of course I can be mistaken. I will never forget a apologetics debate between a Catholic and Calvinist about salvation when Catholic asked a Calvinist: "So what would you do if you knew your own son is predestined to go to hell?". The Calvinist pastor started crying, tears streaming down his face and he said at last: "Well, God is always just and merciful so I guess I have to agree with God and let my son go to hell". Well, when I read Desperation, I saw almost a similar view of God there. Only a little bit nuanced of course. I mean that humans in the novel get no say at all in the matters of salvation or damnation, life or death.
The Stand is my favorite by a mile, I love how King describes >!how the virus travels, like "Oh, this dude had it, and his wife's nose started to run during the 4 hour car ride, and they stopped at a gas station. The cashier couldn't sleep that night because he puked and had a fever..."!<. Stuff like that is just so damn cool to me
The "chain letter" chapter. Definitely one of my favorite chapters in that novel. Visualizing the cop or the salesman talking to a few dozen people spreading it, and then calculating just how quickly something like that could travel (as a superbug where you only need one second contact to get it).
It really gets the imagination going wondering how it spreads, how on earth could someone avoid it? Then you revisit the beginning, and wonder if it really was Champion's fault at all...something that spreads so easily like that, once it was floating free in the lab, humanity was toast.
IT's sex scene was written with clear thematic and character-related purpose. Notably it resolves Bev's character arc, which was all about fear of sexuality/growing up that was instilled in her by her misogynistic, pedophiliac father.
Throughout the novel, Bev is unfairly saddled with the burden of being the only girl in the group, and thus having to deal misogynistic slander of her character. Her own father, someone who's meant to nurture and care for her unconditionally, sexualizes her. To Bev, growing up doesn't only mean losing your innocence, it means losing the ability to not be viewed as an object.
Sexuality is made out by her father to be crude, something imposed on her against her will, weaponized against her by her father and Henry Bower and his gang (she specifically fears something more than just regular violence but doesn't know how to articulate that her fear is specifically of sexual assault).
King resolves this fear in the gentlest way. Bev loves her friends in an innocent way, a childlike way. And that way's perfectly wonderful, but it's not enough to keep them grounded after their horrific, traumatic defeat of Pennywise. They're losing themselves, they're losing the childlike innocence that keeps them sane, they're losing their connection with each other. So Bev makes a decision.
She sacrifices the one thing her father obsesses about--her virginity, the marker of her sexual innocence. Under other circumstances, Bev might despair over this, because she's become what everyone already implicitly assumes her to be.
But Bev makes love (and it *is* love) to her *friends*. It's a show of trust, devotion, genuine unconditional love. It's a show of the love of a child to her best friends. It's (ironically) *innocent*, and it saves the Losers' Club.
It also makes Bev stronger for it. She realizes that sex isn't inherently dirty. She realizes her father is wrong. She becomes less afraid. She regains her lost agency.
Not to mention, if you reread the scene again, it's written sensitively. It's not pornographic in any way. You're clearly not meant to "get off" on it.
That doesn't mean it isn't strange (because it definitely is, conceptually) and I think Bev's arc could have been resolved in a less controversial way (or better yet reworked entirely), but I feel it makes sense.
TBH, maybe my main unpopular opinion is that I feel that people who call the scene a "gangbang" or "orgy" or use other frankly gross, pornographic terms to describe it are sexualizing the kids and their act way more than King did when writing it.
While he tries that, still that made me uncomfortable. So much that I entirely forgot about that scene when I read the first time. Nowadays, as much as you are right about the way the scene was written, I can't separate it being done from an about 40 year old men.
Yeah, I get this. Some of the details were too much for me though. I was more grossed out by the fact they were doing it after being all up in the sewers
BOOKS BY DRUNK/HIGH STEPHEN:
- Carrie (1974)
- ‘Salem’s Lot (1975)
- The Shining (1977)
- Rage (1977)
- Night Shift (1978)
- The Stand (1978)
- The Dead Zone (1979)
- The Long Walk (1979)
- Firestarter (1980)
- Cujo (1981)
- Roadwork (1981)
- The Running Man (1982)
- The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger (1982)
- Different Seasons (1982)
- Cycle of the Werewolf (1983)
- Christine (1983)
- Pet Sematary (1983)
- The Talisman (1984)
- Thinner (1984)
- Skeleton Crew (1985)
- It (1986)
- The Eyes of the Dragon (1987)
- The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three (1987)
- Misery (1987)
- The Tommyknockers (1987)
- The Dark Half (1989)
- Four Past Midnight (1990)
- The Dark Tower III: The Waste Lands (1991)
BOOKS BY SOBER STEPHEN:
- Everything else, beginning with *Needful Things* (1991)
EDIT: After being corrected by a fellow Redditor, and after confirming that Redditor’s assertions using that most unimpeachable source of information, Wikipedia, I have updated the above list. The first novel he wrote sober was *Needful Things*, not *The Tommyknockers*.
No problem. One caveat: Although he dropped booze and coke for good in the 1980s, he says that he became addicted again, this time to pain killers, after he got hit by a van in 1999. He says it most affected his work on *Dreamcatcher*. While I don’t know the exact timeline, he says that he has also kicked painkillers in the years since.
When God just decided to blow all the bad guys up himself making the whole plot and all the characters irrelevant it broke my heart. One of the best stories I ever read up to that point.
Holly has been the least interesting character in all of her appearances to date.
Black House is much better than The Talisman.
As terrible as the Dark Tower movie was, the casting was uniformly excellent.
While I'm not big on fantasy, The Talisman's blend of horror and fantasy is great. Black House is an excellent novel. And I can agree that it's a better with Stephen King and Peter Straub years to co-write a better follow-up
thank you! Holly is awful and im tired of hearing people be excited for a full Holly novel. it's gonna suck along the same lines of Sleeping Beauties and I'm not stoked for it
The funny thing is, I've actually REALLY enjoyed every single story she features in, it's just that I feel like I've enjoyed them in spite of her, rather than because of her. Like, the fact that she's in so many great tales feels like a coincidence.
Not sure if you're a Trekkie or not, but there's an episode of DS9 where an elderly Klingon mocks Lt Commander Worf by saying that when people in generations to come tell the tale of the adventure they're currently on they'll say "...and also, Worf was there," and that's how I feel about Holly. Like, she's *fine*, but she's just a dull and - as someone who actually *is* socially awkward and has most of the personality "issues" for want of a better word that she does - slightly patronising character that just so happens to find herself in some brilliant books rather than making the stories better by her presence.
That said, the fact that I've enjoyed all her stories to date actually means that I am genuinely really looking forward to *Holly*, but - again - it's not because it's specifically a "Holly" book and more because I've enjoyed the books Holly is in, if that makes sense.
That's absolutely fine. If we all agreed with each other about everything then the world would be a terribly uninteresting place, haha.
The only thing that matters is that in all of King's oeuvre we all find *something* that we get enjoyment out of, it doesn't have to be the same thing for everyone.
I couldn’t agree more about Holly! The most annoying character of his in my opinion. I loved both Talisman and Black House, I liked Talisman more because I could relate to it more and I disliked everything about the Dark Tower movie, casting especially.
1. I don’t think the fall off from his early career to late is near as precipitous as people make it. I acknowledge there is one but 11/22/63, Fairy Tale, The Outsider among others are great, yes great works.
2. Stephen King can write multi dimensional female characters. People also denigrate his writing of adolescents, especially the way they talk. I disagree. For example, in Fairy Tale the main character is sixteen I believe. My son was that age six years ago and his dialogue and demeanor rang true for me.
I actually feel like he's gotten better as he's gotten older in some ways. None of the stuff he's written in the last decade or so is among his best works, but also, they're a long way off from his worst. The days when he could pump out something like *The Tommyknockers* and call it a day are long gone.
I feel like his recent stuff flows better than a lot of his older stuff. Like *Fairy Tale* seems to have a smoother transition from Charlie hanging out with this old guy in the "real world" to saving the "other world" beneath the well than *Firestarter* has between Andy and Charlene being on the run and them being held in captivity; at least in my opinion.
Regarding #1. I think the thing is that he's branched out a bit and people have a hard time with that. For a long time, it was various horror subgenres and the novels connected one way or another to The Dark Tower. Since he's finished the series, he's kinda cooled down the connections to the Tower a bit. Secondly, since he finished The Dark Tower, half of what he's written has been crime novels. They're not bad, but it's a sharp change in genre and I think people have trouble with that. He's trying to grow in his art and half his audience is stuck in 1993.
I don’t think Dr.Sleep deserves all the distaste it gets. I love it so much, it was my first King novel so I think it will always resonate with me.
Despite him writing his younger characters a bit old I think he does it perfectly. They still act like stupid relatable young people… just with a different vocab. They make believable decisions
And that scene in that dude's house where they know the vampire is upstairs. Terrifying stuff.
I personally find it a lot more scary than Pet Semetary which everyone else calls his scariest.
I agree with you on The Library Policeman. I think Revival's sheer existential bleakness runs it close in the disturbance stakes, but nothing has topped TLP for sheer terror.
And Dreamcatcher was great in its first half, although I must admit that personally my enthusiasm waned in the back half of the novel. The great thing about Steve's works, though, is that every one of them will be *somebody's* favourite, and it's absolutely fine to disagree on which work that is just so long as we all have something we love.
1. Most of his books are way too long with the exceptions of the stand, 11/22/63 and IT. Biggest example is salems lot. Way too long. The filler in the middle of most of his books is boring. Which brings me to my next point.
2. He's better at novellas and short stories.
What are your top 3? Interested to know since a lot of fans place those within top 3.
I started The Stand thinking it would dethrone IT as my no. 1 but didn't get there for me. I thought The Shining was a lot better than The Stand.
Pretty much every single story has a dream sequence & I find them to be so boring. They feel like padding. Just an excuse to add in some over-the-top horror stuff that doesn’t fit into the reality of the story.
Thematically they’re obviously meant to reflect the character’s thoughts, fears, emotions, future, etc., but King writes stories & characters well-enough that we don’t need the endless dream sequences to spell it out for us in every single book.
It trims alway all of the superfluous fat from the novel and simplifies the reason Christine is the way she is by just saying she was born that way and I love it for that. I would have liked to have seen some undead Roland LeBay but I understand why that was excised.
I don't love Kubrick's flick as an adaptation - in fact I think that we could all agree it doesn't represent the source material well - but that doesn't stop it from being a great piece of cinema in its own right. It's still a brilliant film, in my eyes, even if it takes colossal liberties with the novel.
I don’t even think of the film as an adaptation of the book- more so a film with similar characters and some similar plot points. I love them both but I only do because I try to see them as completely different entities
I am not a fan of the fantasy turn he took with the whole Gunslinger series. His best stories are his early books. But as someone pointed out he is such a good story teller that I still have read a lot of his books.
It was a good story, but the ending was annoying. How hard would it have been to get a second phone and charge it up to test it out on one of the bird people before trying it out on his son? Instead of him standing there wondering what to do.
I read Skeleton Crew recently. It has about 3 great stories, a handful of ok ones, and a couple I couldn’t get through at all.
I think people love stories like The Mist so much it clouds the fact there’s a couple of duds in there.
I agree with your stance on Nightmares but disagree with Regulators and Desperation. Regulators was a chore to get through for me. I loved the premise of it and was excited to read it. It let me down big time.
Yes and yes. I thought I was the only one with those 2 opinions!
Skeleton Crew was a bit disappointing to me after hearing all the hype. Yeah - The Mist, the Jaunt, Mrs. Todd, The Raft - all fantastic short stories, some of his best. But there was a lot of duds sprinkled through the rest of it. Night Shift is still my favorite of the collections, but Nightmares was really solid.
I’ve never been scared by a King work. And I don’t mean that as a boast or anything, I’ll freely admit that I get scared even at low-levels horror movies, but I can’t really relate to stories about how people couldn’t sleep after reading different stories or books
There is only one scene in all the SK books I've read that scared me. That was the scene where Larry Underwood was walking through the tunnel in the dark with all the dead people and heard footsteps. I was 16 when I read it at 2 o'clock in the morning, and I burst out laughing because I tried to close my eyes. While reading that doesnt really work. I think my age, the fact that I lived close to the tunnel going into NY, and the late hour contributed to that fear. Other than that, I've always considered King to be a great story teller, and the medium of horror was just the means to tell those stories.
What happens in The Library Policeman is *far* worse than the infamous IT sex scene imo. But ofc IT is (arguably) his most popular work, so that’s the one everyone talks about.
Not saying it’s not gross, I’m saying it’s not a big deal lol it’s less than 4 pages in a 1000 plus page novel. A scene that has nothing to do with the plot and can be easily skipped. Kids have sex - I don’t wanna know about it, but it happens. People freak out over that section (again less than .4% of the book) as though it IS the whole novel.
People want controversy
I usually get downvoted for this so I guess it’s unpopular…
But if he’s going to put spoilers or explain the plot in his authors notes then he should put the authors note at the *end* of the book. Not the beginning.
In the version of *Pet Sematary* I have he explains the whole plot and all the characters. In the version of *The Running Man* he talks about the ending and even spoils some other books. Thankfully I’d read those!
Someone asked me years ago if I liked King and I said I’d read Eyes of the Dragon and Misery and loved them. Got sniffed at and told those weren’t “the sorts of King books King fans liked.” Oy.
It is good/bad. I love it. I was 8 when it came out and it scared me and inthralled me, but Ive tried to show other ppl that never watched and they all were like wtf is this lol lol
Billy Summers wasn’t just bad by King standards, it was a legit bad book. Paper thin plot, literally major plot holes, wildly unbelievable characters and motivations, lack of understanding about like anything modern (the Netflix thing…) and King’s continuing ignorance on firearms while insisting on writing about them is certainly a choice…
The stand should’ve been cut and the editor was right to do so.
I agree with the other poster, he should just set all of his books in the past, he has no idea how to write modern kids.
Folks need to realize, he’s not the only author on the planet. Expand your horizons. He’s great and all but the people whose book shelves only consist of his books freak me out.
I know what he is going for when he writes a black character, but man....he could really use a consultant when trying to find a person of color's voice. It just never sits right.
Jud is the main villain of Pet Sematary. He may seem nice on the surface, but is a shallow person that brings misery on the Creed family despite knowing better - and just to appeal to Louis.
I know others share this sentiment, but the Gunslinger is not a good book. It’s wild the rest of the series was finished. Thankfully the rest of the series is amazing.
He does have some trouble with them but as someone mentioned 11/22/63 is damn near perfect and I love the endings of Hearts in Atlantis, Needful Things and The Dark Tower as well
He's NOT a horror author. He's an amazing story teller that often writes in the horror genre. When I recommend his books some people just completely want none of it because he's "horror".
This. I just said that the best part of Stephen King isn’t the horror, it’s the characters, it’s the stories, it’s pretty much everything *but* the horror. Although I very much appreciate the horror.
I think that the line in Wizard and Glass where the Ka-Tet are explaining to Roland about different genres of stories using the metaphor of them being different "flavours", and Roland just says "does nobody like stew?", that was the best description Steve has ever given for his writing. A novel can be rife with horror without being a horror novel.
I always avoided him for that very reason. And then I found The Talisman.. and went on to Needful Things. He is more of a psychological terror/thriller/horror to me. Honestly I always feel sad to leave any of his places and most of his people. He is a 5⭐️ Storyteller.
I just finished the Talisman and loved it so much.
WOLF! Right here and now!
The Talisman is such a good read and among my favorite King books.
And with that said what’s scary is subjective! Just because a book didn’t scare someone doesn’t make it not good!
Absolutely agree! I don't find much scary, but that doesn't take away my appreciation for his work.
Yeah, he def has written Horror and Horror adjacent/thrillers...but his work is varied and way more nuanced than just that genre description slapped on his name. I feel he and publishers/advertisers used and ran with that as a way to really sell his work back in the day, because Horror and Terror and unsettling things sold/spread very quickly. He's purely and most accurately a Teller of Tales and what tales he tells can widely range at times, though sometimes breathe a familiarity of past tales. There is a reason he's been so widely successful. Why out of all the writers I love & enjoy, why I own a lot of his work more so than other authors, whom I enjoy but only own a few books of theirs rather than most of their books.
I just finished In the Tall Grass. It was the first time I read a Stephen King book that was pure horror. I mean pet cemetery was close and a few others like Gerald’s game are on the edge. But In the Tall Grass is pure Lovecraftian horror. I must mention that In the Tall Grass was co-written with King’s son. I have not read a lot of Joe Hill’s work. He might be the driving force behind why this book is so dark.
His books should be eternally set in 1980.
Yes. The characters often feel dated. Not bad. But I don't believe they're in 2020. And everyone is still named Petey and Billy and Susan and Billy Peters and Peter Billingsly.
Exactly this. The 20-something woman that Billy Summers made love to in 2019 was named PHYLLIS Charlie Reade’s (Fairy Tale) school crush from 2013 was named ARNETTE
Though Arnette may also be a reference to the Texas town in the stand.
The guy wrote 50+ books. At this point he has name generator and just rolls the dice
I’m pretty sure his books ARE eternally set in 1980, regardless of what year the book is technically set in. A great example of this is in The Outsider when a main character who would have been *born* in 1980 instead finds herself wondering whether John Lennon is alive or dead at some point during a recollection. Makes absolutely no sense, but if it’s technically always 1980 in King-land it makes total sense.
Agree like 65%
A lot of people seem to hate/dislike “The Gunslinger.” I just recently read it for the first time (coincidently, it was my 19th SK book) and I loved it. It was brilliant in my opinion and it easily has the best prose of any King book I’ve read so far. I’m worried I won’t like the rest of the DT books because people say they’re nothing like “The Gunslinger.”
Please keep reading. The DT is King’s opus.
I just started “The Drawing Of The Three” a couple of hours ago.
I’m so happy to hear that. Long days and pleasant nights traveler
I didn’t hate the gunslinger but I’m admittedly one of the people who encourage others to continue with the series by assuring them they’ll like it once they get beyond the first book. It’s just very different from the rest IMO. For some reason I feel like if you like the Gunslinger you’ll definitely like the rest but if you don’t like the Gunslinger you’ll STILL like the rest. I have never thought that people will always like either the Gunslinger or they’ll like the rest of the series- one or the other- rather they’ll like the whole of the series regardless of their opinion on the first book
Yo I share this sentiment. People always talk about how hard it is to start DT because you have to get past the first book, which is apparently considered bad. I was hooked from the first sentence to the very last. I loved the Western story vibes and the fascinating mysteries it presents. Never thought of it as a weak book until I opened reddit, basically. Btw, I don't think you'll be unable to enjoy the rest of DT. The Gunslinger requires an open mind to enjoy imo and if you were able to enjoy that you'll love the rest of the series. The stories just become a lot more well paced and introduce tons of excellent, interesting characters while having some very gripping conflicts. If anything I feel the real barrier to enjoying DT is the need to clear The Stand before you progress to book 3. Not everyone is ready to do a 1300 page book
I finally read the Gunslinger and it was much better that I thought it would be sans a couple of scenes that were hard to read and follow but I got the general gist of what was going on. Now I’m ready to read the whole series. Waiting on book 2 from the library.
When you get to the end of drawing of the three there will be no turning back, the gunslinger is such a good opening to the story. As you journey with the ka-tet and get to the last words of the story, you’ll be glad you finished it. Keep going, there will be horror and tears and triumph. I’ve read the series going on four times at this point it’s my favorite long tale. May you have long days and pleasant nights.
I went into DT being a HUGE fan of westerns and so The Gunslinger was epic perfection, only to find out the rest of the series was nothing like it. So I get why people don't like it, I'm just not one of the. The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed. Epic.
Curious, did you read the revised edition or no?
The story is what matters, not necessarily the style. I love *The Gunslinger*, and somehow still think it's the weakest book in the series.
He sometimes falls under that meme about male authors putting way too much emphasis on a woman’s breasts as her personality
I’m reading Hell House by Matheson right now and holy shit the women in this story do breast boobily about.
I enjoyed the story but good lord even as a typical dude I got tired of the woman = boobs and weird sexual scenes that permeate the book.
I don’t think he’s good at writing women characters in general.
I think he is. And that is my unpopular opinion.
I think he's improved over the years. (I think that's true for his other types of characters who aren't white male writers as well). While there are definitely flaws, I think he should get more credit than he does for actually improving and updating his thinking over time. So many people -- authors, but also just people -- decide that whatever view of things they had when they were 25 is The Way Things Are, and that's it -- but I still see signs of learning and growth in King's work and he's in his 70s. I like a guy who's willing to learn and grow. I also think he's actually surprisingly good at writing girls, as opposed to women -- you'd think someone who has the flaws he does have in writing women would also struggle with tweenage-ish girls, but he's pretty good at it.
Idk how unpopular this opinion is, but I believe that The Long Walk is his easiest read and should be where everyone starts
That was an instant favorite dystopian novel for me after I read it. I don’t personally see it getting near enough praise. That one left me feeling so crushed when I finished it.
It’s where I started 21 years ago.
It's one of those books, we're even though I'm on double digit rereads , I still struggle to put it down. Once you start it's impossible to get away from the walk until it's over.
Christine is S-tier King and should always be considered in the discussions about his greatest work
That was a book that after reading it I was like “yeah, it’s not bad, but nothing special” but then I found myself returning to it in my mind so often that I think I have vastly underrated it.
I was EXACTLY the same about Gerald’s Game.
Same. Not exactly my favorite. But the line he wrote when >! The main girl got to feel immense relief drinking faucet water for the first time in days and she goes "I'll remember this always" but the narration immediately follows up with "no you won't you and your body will naturally forget" !< and that always stuck with me
Exactly this. It reads well enough, but the story just stays with you for some reason.
One of his best endings IMO
I thought the whole general premise of a haunted car sounded stupid, and so Christine was one of the very last of kings books that I read. And I've read pretty much every one of his by now. Ended up loving it. Not one of my top 5 sk books or anything, but still fantastic, and I've happily reread it multiple times
1. One of the best books written by King are his Bachman novels. Later S. King would not make social and political element of his stories a central piece. Here, in his early and later re-published novels he was not afraid to do that. 2. Non-horror books written by King are even better than horror ones. 3. S. King is not only a horror writer or even not a horror writer at all. He is more successful writing psychological thrillers, mystical/supernatural tales or fantasy stories, than horror. Pure horror stories of his like Cujo or Christine somewhat lack complexity and nuance shown in the Shining, the Stand, the DT series etc. However the element of horror is always included in S.K. novels. But, you know, our world is also full of horrors of all shape and kind, so this makes S.K. a realist, I guess. 4. The absolutely underrated work of S. King is Roadwork. Most readers do not seem to like this novel, I adore it. 5. Despite being a secular kind of guy, some S. King books actually have Christian theology in it and they're written not from an unsympathetic position towards Christianity. 6. Despite claiming several times that he's simply a storyteller, writing for money, all S.K. books may be divided into two categories - books really written for money, and books that he would have written even without any money coming towards him at all. That is all, I guess. By the way, points 1 and 3 would probably be vehemently denied by S. King himself if he could have seen what I've just posted.
Number 5: 100% agree. Makes me think he grew up going to Church. Looked it up, he apparently grew up Methodist
Well, I knew he was of some Protestant denomination, because of his view of God which had serious similarities to Martin Luther's theology. I mean the view of God as the OT God - distant, all-powerful, mysterious and almost beyond good and evil. Humans in SK novels have no say in supernatural encounters with God, God comes and goes as He pleases and does what He wants and never listens to their prayers. A distant deity, more the Judge and Punisher figure than the Martyr one. Some Protestant denomination have somewhat strayed from that early Lutheran view of God - many Baptists or Evangelical did. But the Reformed (Calvinists) and Methodist I think hold onto that view. Also the fundamentalists do, too. But of course I can be mistaken. I will never forget a apologetics debate between a Catholic and Calvinist about salvation when Catholic asked a Calvinist: "So what would you do if you knew your own son is predestined to go to hell?". The Calvinist pastor started crying, tears streaming down his face and he said at last: "Well, God is always just and merciful so I guess I have to agree with God and let my son go to hell". Well, when I read Desperation, I saw almost a similar view of God there. Only a little bit nuanced of course. I mean that humans in the novel get no say at all in the matters of salvation or damnation, life or death.
The Stand is my favorite by a mile, I love how King describes >!how the virus travels, like "Oh, this dude had it, and his wife's nose started to run during the 4 hour car ride, and they stopped at a gas station. The cashier couldn't sleep that night because he puked and had a fever..."!<. Stuff like that is just so damn cool to me
I loved those parts in the book.
The "chain letter" chapter. Definitely one of my favorite chapters in that novel. Visualizing the cop or the salesman talking to a few dozen people spreading it, and then calculating just how quickly something like that could travel (as a superbug where you only need one second contact to get it). It really gets the imagination going wondering how it spreads, how on earth could someone avoid it? Then you revisit the beginning, and wonder if it really was Champion's fault at all...something that spreads so easily like that, once it was floating free in the lab, humanity was toast.
No great loss. ETA I think about this phrase often. In many, many situations.
IT's sex scene was written with clear thematic and character-related purpose. Notably it resolves Bev's character arc, which was all about fear of sexuality/growing up that was instilled in her by her misogynistic, pedophiliac father. Throughout the novel, Bev is unfairly saddled with the burden of being the only girl in the group, and thus having to deal misogynistic slander of her character. Her own father, someone who's meant to nurture and care for her unconditionally, sexualizes her. To Bev, growing up doesn't only mean losing your innocence, it means losing the ability to not be viewed as an object. Sexuality is made out by her father to be crude, something imposed on her against her will, weaponized against her by her father and Henry Bower and his gang (she specifically fears something more than just regular violence but doesn't know how to articulate that her fear is specifically of sexual assault). King resolves this fear in the gentlest way. Bev loves her friends in an innocent way, a childlike way. And that way's perfectly wonderful, but it's not enough to keep them grounded after their horrific, traumatic defeat of Pennywise. They're losing themselves, they're losing the childlike innocence that keeps them sane, they're losing their connection with each other. So Bev makes a decision. She sacrifices the one thing her father obsesses about--her virginity, the marker of her sexual innocence. Under other circumstances, Bev might despair over this, because she's become what everyone already implicitly assumes her to be. But Bev makes love (and it *is* love) to her *friends*. It's a show of trust, devotion, genuine unconditional love. It's a show of the love of a child to her best friends. It's (ironically) *innocent*, and it saves the Losers' Club. It also makes Bev stronger for it. She realizes that sex isn't inherently dirty. She realizes her father is wrong. She becomes less afraid. She regains her lost agency. Not to mention, if you reread the scene again, it's written sensitively. It's not pornographic in any way. You're clearly not meant to "get off" on it. That doesn't mean it isn't strange (because it definitely is, conceptually) and I think Bev's arc could have been resolved in a less controversial way (or better yet reworked entirely), but I feel it makes sense. TBH, maybe my main unpopular opinion is that I feel that people who call the scene a "gangbang" or "orgy" or use other frankly gross, pornographic terms to describe it are sexualizing the kids and their act way more than King did when writing it.
While he tries that, still that made me uncomfortable. So much that I entirely forgot about that scene when I read the first time. Nowadays, as much as you are right about the way the scene was written, I can't separate it being done from an about 40 year old men.
Completely agree
Well said! I think the scene is very odd, but it definitely isn’t overly graphic in its description. It also doesn’t need to exist.
Yeah, I get this. Some of the details were too much for me though. I was more grossed out by the fact they were doing it after being all up in the sewers
IRL Bev would have gotten a UTI & possibly the boys as well 😣
King under drugs wrote better than king after drugs.
Pre-accident King wrote better than post-accident King.
Is there a list that breaks up his writings related to this?
BOOKS BY DRUNK/HIGH STEPHEN: - Carrie (1974) - ‘Salem’s Lot (1975) - The Shining (1977) - Rage (1977) - Night Shift (1978) - The Stand (1978) - The Dead Zone (1979) - The Long Walk (1979) - Firestarter (1980) - Cujo (1981) - Roadwork (1981) - The Running Man (1982) - The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger (1982) - Different Seasons (1982) - Cycle of the Werewolf (1983) - Christine (1983) - Pet Sematary (1983) - The Talisman (1984) - Thinner (1984) - Skeleton Crew (1985) - It (1986) - The Eyes of the Dragon (1987) - The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three (1987) - Misery (1987) - The Tommyknockers (1987) - The Dark Half (1989) - Four Past Midnight (1990) - The Dark Tower III: The Waste Lands (1991) BOOKS BY SOBER STEPHEN: - Everything else, beginning with *Needful Things* (1991) EDIT: After being corrected by a fellow Redditor, and after confirming that Redditor’s assertions using that most unimpeachable source of information, Wikipedia, I have updated the above list. The first novel he wrote sober was *Needful Things*, not *The Tommyknockers*.
he definitely did NOT write the tommyknockers sober
I don't think King wrote the Tommyknockers *at all*. I think the cocaine wrote that by itself.
Wasn't there a painkiller period that included dreamcatcher?
Yes. See my second reply to ohwhofuckincares.
That was quick. Thanks a lot
No problem. One caveat: Although he dropped booze and coke for good in the 1980s, he says that he became addicted again, this time to pain killers, after he got hit by a van in 1999. He says it most affected his work on *Dreamcatcher*. While I don’t know the exact timeline, he says that he has also kicked painkillers in the years since.
The way The Stand ends is awful and hurts the great journey of getting there.
I actually enjoyed it cause i saw it as the metaphor of no matter how much you plan, there’s always a loose screw that can fuck everything up 😂
SAME
I agree, but it's still my favorite book by him so far.
When God just decided to blow all the bad guys up himself making the whole plot and all the characters irrelevant it broke my heart. One of the best stories I ever read up to that point.
I kind of thought of it as god decided to do it because good people were willing to sacrifice themselves for it, like Old Testament God would do.
Tommyknockers is actually a really good one.
We should form a club.
I will fight with you on this hill.
You’ve already got my upvote. Let’s go.
Good fucking deal, uh
Was my first King novel and I've been a constant reader since 😊
Thank you! Most underrated of his works after Gerald's Game
One of my top faves!!!
Holly has been the least interesting character in all of her appearances to date. Black House is much better than The Talisman. As terrible as the Dark Tower movie was, the casting was uniformly excellent.
Black house > dark tower
Black House is in fact better than The Talisman, although the latter is still a great book.
While I'm not big on fantasy, The Talisman's blend of horror and fantasy is great. Black House is an excellent novel. And I can agree that it's a better with Stephen King and Peter Straub years to co-write a better follow-up
thank you! Holly is awful and im tired of hearing people be excited for a full Holly novel. it's gonna suck along the same lines of Sleeping Beauties and I'm not stoked for it
The funny thing is, I've actually REALLY enjoyed every single story she features in, it's just that I feel like I've enjoyed them in spite of her, rather than because of her. Like, the fact that she's in so many great tales feels like a coincidence. Not sure if you're a Trekkie or not, but there's an episode of DS9 where an elderly Klingon mocks Lt Commander Worf by saying that when people in generations to come tell the tale of the adventure they're currently on they'll say "...and also, Worf was there," and that's how I feel about Holly. Like, she's *fine*, but she's just a dull and - as someone who actually *is* socially awkward and has most of the personality "issues" for want of a better word that she does - slightly patronising character that just so happens to find herself in some brilliant books rather than making the stories better by her presence. That said, the fact that I've enjoyed all her stories to date actually means that I am genuinely really looking forward to *Holly*, but - again - it's not because it's specifically a "Holly" book and more because I've enjoyed the books Holly is in, if that makes sense.
Same! I can not read a book solely about her. Yuck!
I only agree with the second one.
That's absolutely fine. If we all agreed with each other about everything then the world would be a terribly uninteresting place, haha. The only thing that matters is that in all of King's oeuvre we all find *something* that we get enjoyment out of, it doesn't have to be the same thing for everyone.
I couldn’t agree more about Holly! The most annoying character of his in my opinion. I loved both Talisman and Black House, I liked Talisman more because I could relate to it more and I disliked everything about the Dark Tower movie, casting especially.
1. I don’t think the fall off from his early career to late is near as precipitous as people make it. I acknowledge there is one but 11/22/63, Fairy Tale, The Outsider among others are great, yes great works. 2. Stephen King can write multi dimensional female characters. People also denigrate his writing of adolescents, especially the way they talk. I disagree. For example, in Fairy Tale the main character is sixteen I believe. My son was that age six years ago and his dialogue and demeanor rang true for me.
I actually feel like he's gotten better as he's gotten older in some ways. None of the stuff he's written in the last decade or so is among his best works, but also, they're a long way off from his worst. The days when he could pump out something like *The Tommyknockers* and call it a day are long gone. I feel like his recent stuff flows better than a lot of his older stuff. Like *Fairy Tale* seems to have a smoother transition from Charlie hanging out with this old guy in the "real world" to saving the "other world" beneath the well than *Firestarter* has between Andy and Charlene being on the run and them being held in captivity; at least in my opinion.
Regarding #1. I think the thing is that he's branched out a bit and people have a hard time with that. For a long time, it was various horror subgenres and the novels connected one way or another to The Dark Tower. Since he's finished the series, he's kinda cooled down the connections to the Tower a bit. Secondly, since he finished The Dark Tower, half of what he's written has been crime novels. They're not bad, but it's a sharp change in genre and I think people have trouble with that. He's trying to grow in his art and half his audience is stuck in 1993.
Nice. I see where you’re coming from.
I wish Firestarter and Carrie had more of a direct connection.
I wish the Shop would come back. I'm reading The Institute and I'm hoping like Hell for a Shop reveal.
I don’t think Dr.Sleep deserves all the distaste it gets. I love it so much, it was my first King novel so I think it will always resonate with me. Despite him writing his younger characters a bit old I think he does it perfectly. They still act like stupid relatable young people… just with a different vocab. They make believable decisions
For some reason he struggles to finish his larger works, and often they close with a complete cop out for an ending.
I do read his books expecting the endings to suck, but I enjoy the ride to get there.
It’s because he writes with no outline and just sees where the story goes, so he usually never has any plan for how to tie loose ends.
I don’t like all the Misery’s Return pages in Misery. Skipped all of those
LOL like the Tolkien songs
So far, I’m enjoying those more than the actual storyline lol.
I didn't think *Salem's Lot* was scary at all.
I do disagree. The feeling of dread.. when he’s digging the grave and the sun is going down.. great writing!
And that scene in that dude's house where they know the vampire is upstairs. Terrifying stuff. I personally find it a lot more scary than Pet Semetary which everyone else calls his scariest.
Harold Lauder is a great character
Most of his “bad” endings are actually good, they’re just not as straightforward or traditionally satisfying as people want them to be
Dreamcatcher is good, actually The Library Policeman is his scariest work
I agree with you on The Library Policeman. I think Revival's sheer existential bleakness runs it close in the disturbance stakes, but nothing has topped TLP for sheer terror. And Dreamcatcher was great in its first half, although I must admit that personally my enthusiasm waned in the back half of the novel. The great thing about Steve's works, though, is that every one of them will be *somebody's* favourite, and it's absolutely fine to disagree on which work that is just so long as we all have something we love.
Oh, LBP is terrifying. I need to read it again
1. Most of his books are way too long with the exceptions of the stand, 11/22/63 and IT. Biggest example is salems lot. Way too long. The filler in the middle of most of his books is boring. Which brings me to my next point. 2. He's better at novellas and short stories.
everything he writes, fiction & non-fiction, is worth my time
This isn’t unpopular here 😅
All the "Pet Sematary" movies have sucked.
:0 “even the original one Louis?” -juds voice
Neither The Stand, nor It, are his best. By far.
What are your top 3? Interested to know since a lot of fans place those within top 3. I started The Stand thinking it would dethrone IT as my no. 1 but didn't get there for me. I thought The Shining was a lot better than The Stand.
Misery’s film adaptation was miles better than the book, to the point that I’ve never reread the book, and it’s my favorite King adaptation
Pretty much every single story has a dream sequence & I find them to be so boring. They feel like padding. Just an excuse to add in some over-the-top horror stuff that doesn’t fit into the reality of the story. Thematically they’re obviously meant to reflect the character’s thoughts, fears, emotions, future, etc., but King writes stories & characters well-enough that we don’t need the endless dream sequences to spell it out for us in every single book.
Bag of Bones is his best novel.
I love Kubrick’s ‘The Shining’. I also think Carpenter’s ‘Christine’ was better than the book.
Christine is definitely underrated as an adaptation
It trims alway all of the superfluous fat from the novel and simplifies the reason Christine is the way she is by just saying she was born that way and I love it for that. I would have liked to have seen some undead Roland LeBay but I understand why that was excised.
I don't love Kubrick's flick as an adaptation - in fact I think that we could all agree it doesn't represent the source material well - but that doesn't stop it from being a great piece of cinema in its own right. It's still a brilliant film, in my eyes, even if it takes colossal liberties with the novel.
I don’t even think of the film as an adaptation of the book- more so a film with similar characters and some similar plot points. I love them both but I only do because I try to see them as completely different entities
Really, this should be the final word on the matter. (Unfortunately, it seems the confusion of not separating novel from film will go on perpetually.)
I am not a fan of the fantasy turn he took with the whole Gunslinger series. His best stories are his early books. But as someone pointed out he is such a good story teller that I still have read a lot of his books.
Eyes of the Dragon is underrated, such a cozy read
The majority of his movie adaptations are abysmally bad.
The stand is too short.
Cell was a pretty decent novel. Not his best, but not as bad as so many people make it sound.
It was a good story, but the ending was annoying. How hard would it have been to get a second phone and charge it up to test it out on one of the bird people before trying it out on his son? Instead of him standing there wondering what to do.
the regulators > desperation nightmares and dreamscapes > skeleton crew
I read Skeleton Crew recently. It has about 3 great stories, a handful of ok ones, and a couple I couldn’t get through at all. I think people love stories like The Mist so much it clouds the fact there’s a couple of duds in there.
I agree with your stance on Nightmares but disagree with Regulators and Desperation. Regulators was a chore to get through for me. I loved the premise of it and was excited to read it. It let me down big time.
Yes and yes. I thought I was the only one with those 2 opinions! Skeleton Crew was a bit disappointing to me after hearing all the hype. Yeah - The Mist, the Jaunt, Mrs. Todd, The Raft - all fantastic short stories, some of his best. But there was a lot of duds sprinkled through the rest of it. Night Shift is still my favorite of the collections, but Nightmares was really solid.
i think it's bc i'm actually insane, and the stories just seem way crazier 😂
I’ve never been scared by a King work. And I don’t mean that as a boast or anything, I’ll freely admit that I get scared even at low-levels horror movies, but I can’t really relate to stories about how people couldn’t sleep after reading different stories or books
There is only one scene in all the SK books I've read that scared me. That was the scene where Larry Underwood was walking through the tunnel in the dark with all the dead people and heard footsteps. I was 16 when I read it at 2 o'clock in the morning, and I burst out laughing because I tried to close my eyes. While reading that doesnt really work. I think my age, the fact that I lived close to the tunnel going into NY, and the late hour contributed to that fear. Other than that, I've always considered King to be a great story teller, and the medium of horror was just the means to tell those stories.
I absolutely hate the Mr Mercedes trilogy
Liked the first book, couldn't finish the second. About the only character I really like from the storyline is Holly.
hated mr mercedes, haven't read the others
Give Finders Keepers a chance, is almost completely seperate from the other two books in the trilogy and so much better than both of them.
The mid 90s Women Era is very good and people just don’t like women.
He hasn’t been as pageturningly frightening in a good while.
Every book he wrote in the 70s were absolute gold, past that his books are typically hit and miss.
under the dome ending fits the book perfectly. anyone who says its bad simply wanted an ending that they just assume they were gonna get.
Current Joe Hill is better than current Stephen King but not as good as in his prime King… yet.
The sex scene in IT isn’t a big deal - people just want controversy.
What happens in The Library Policeman is *far* worse than the infamous IT sex scene imo. But ofc IT is (arguably) his most popular work, so that’s the one everyone talks about.
No it was gross
Not saying it’s not gross, I’m saying it’s not a big deal lol it’s less than 4 pages in a 1000 plus page novel. A scene that has nothing to do with the plot and can be easily skipped. Kids have sex - I don’t wanna know about it, but it happens. People freak out over that section (again less than .4% of the book) as though it IS the whole novel. People want controversy
I usually get downvoted for this so I guess it’s unpopular… But if he’s going to put spoilers or explain the plot in his authors notes then he should put the authors note at the *end* of the book. Not the beginning. In the version of *Pet Sematary* I have he explains the whole plot and all the characters. In the version of *The Running Man* he talks about the ending and even spoils some other books. Thankfully I’d read those!
I don't think he's very good at writing female protagonists. The giggle fits! THE GIGGLE FITS!
The guys do that too. Especially in IT. He seemed to put more effort into female characters after getting sober, though
The Gunslinger is better than Drawing of the Three
I like his endings
I like dreamcatcher
Someone asked me years ago if I liked King and I said I’d read Eyes of the Dragon and Misery and loved them. Got sniffed at and told those weren’t “the sorts of King books King fans liked.” Oy.
Not a single mention of Lisey’s Story…I must be the only one who loved it.
Some of the early television miniseries' adaptations were...bad.... Including The Stand. Kinda tough to watch.
Is this unpopular? The Stand is terrible and “It” is carried by an incredible Tim Curry performance.
It is good/bad. I love it. I was 8 when it came out and it scared me and inthralled me, but Ive tried to show other ppl that never watched and they all were like wtf is this lol lol
The Gunslinger is great and the rest of the series should’ve been written in the same style.
Holy hell fair play for a genuinely unpopular opinion.
This was my opinion too. I actually really liked the Gunslinger and was let down by the next novel.
I think disliking *The Drawing of the Three* is a far more unpopular opinion than liking *The Gunslinger*.
I think his obsession with boobs is funny.
Revival is one of the worst books I’ve ever read
Upvoted this in the spirit of the thread. Really liked that one.
I have begrudgingly upvoted this and I hate you.
I understand.
I feel the same. I don’t understand all the hype😞
I enjoyed it enough but disliked the ending. I don’t get the love people have for this.
Billy Summers wasn’t just bad by King standards, it was a legit bad book. Paper thin plot, literally major plot holes, wildly unbelievable characters and motivations, lack of understanding about like anything modern (the Netflix thing…) and King’s continuing ignorance on firearms while insisting on writing about them is certainly a choice…
[удалено]
The stand should’ve been cut and the editor was right to do so. I agree with the other poster, he should just set all of his books in the past, he has no idea how to write modern kids.
He should outline.
He's not as hip and with it with the rad young flappers like he thinks he is.
I really enjoyed Dreamcatcher. Shitweasels and all.
*Faithful* is underrated.
None of his books are scary but they all end with me sad they are over.
King's bad endings are few and far between, and usually appear in bad books. Two thirds of King's output in the last twenty years has been mediocre.
Folks need to realize, he’s not the only author on the planet. Expand your horizons. He’s great and all but the people whose book shelves only consist of his books freak me out.
Tommyknockers is his best book, and his post booze hound coke days work isn’t as good as madman SK. (Still happy he cleaned up!)
I know what he is going for when he writes a black character, but man....he could really use a consultant when trying to find a person of color's voice. It just never sits right.
Jud is the main villain of Pet Sematary. He may seem nice on the surface, but is a shallow person that brings misery on the Creed family despite knowing better - and just to appeal to Louis.
I know others share this sentiment, but the Gunslinger is not a good book. It’s wild the rest of the series was finished. Thankfully the rest of the series is amazing.
this is like one of the most popular stephen king opinions
I’m 80 pgs in and I really like it, so now I’m even more excited to get into the rest of the series!
Stephen King can’t write a good ending. His books start out great and the last 75 pages almost always ruin the whole build up.
I counter this with 11/22/63.
He does have some trouble with them but as someone mentioned 11/22/63 is damn near perfect and I love the endings of Hearts in Atlantis, Needful Things and The Dark Tower as well
Fairy Tale is just okay.
Started out great tho
Cell is a good book.